Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering

by Chris Seck on June 8, 2007

Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel recently spoke at Stanford on the subject of his new book, The
Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. He focused on the ethical
problems of using biomedical technologies to determine and choose from the genetic material of
human embryos, an issue that has inspired much debate.
A:Discuss: What in your opinion are the ethical problems of using biomedical technologies to
determine and choose from the genetic material of human embryos?
Having followed Sandels writings on genetic enhancement for several years, I think that this issue
deserves special thought. For many years, the specter of human genetic engineering has haunted
conservatives and liberals alike. Generally, their main criticisms run thus:
First, genetic engineering limits childrens autonomy to shape their own destinies. Writer Dinesh
DSouza articulates this position in a 2001 National Review Online article: If parents are able to
remake a childs genetic makeup, they are in a sense writing the genetic instructions that shape his
entire life. If my parents give me blue eyes instead of brown eyes, if they make me tall instead of
medium height, if they choose a passive over an aggressive personality, their choices will have a
direct, lifelong effect on me. In other words, genetic enhancement is immoral because it artificially
molds peoples lives, often pointing their destinies in directions that they themselves would not
freely choose. Therefore, it represents a fundamental violation of their rights as human beings.
B: Discuss: How far do you agree with DSouzas opinion? Why?
Second, some fear that genetic engineering will lead to eugenics. In a 2006 column, writer Charles
Colson laments: British medical researchers recently announced plans to use cutting-edge science to
eliminate a condition my family is familiar with: autism. Actually, they are not curing autism or even
making life better for autistic people. Their plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people.
There is no in utero test for autism as there is for Down syndrome[Prenatal] testing, combined with
abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered populationThis
utilitarian view of life inevitably leads us exactly where the Nazis were creating a master race. Cant
we see it? The logic behind this argument is that human genetic enhancement perpetuates
discrimination against the disabled and the genetically unfit, and that this sort of discrimination is
similar to the sort that inspired the eugenics of the Third Reich.
C: Summarise Charles Colsons concerns. How far do you share Charles Colsons concerns? Why?
A third argument is that genetic engineering will lead to vast social inequalities. This idea is expressed
in the 1997 cult film Gattaca, which portrays a society where the rich enjoy genetic enhancements
perfect eyesight, improved height, higher intelligencethat the poor cannot afford. Therefore, the
main character Vincent, a man from a poor background who aspires to be an astronaut, finds it
difficult to achieve his goal because he is short-sighted and has a weak heart. This discrepancy is
exacerbated by the fact that his brother, who is genetically-engineered, enjoys perfect health and is
better able to achieve his dreams. To many, Gattaca is a dystopia where vast gaps between the haves
and have-nots will become intolerable, due to the existence of not just material, but also genetic
inequalities.
D: Discuss: How far do you think the inequalities between rich and poor could become a reality?

The critics are right that a world with genetic engineering will contain inequalities. On the other
hand, it is arguable that a world without genetic engineering, like this one, is even more unequal. In
Gattaca, a genetically fit majority of people can aspire to be astronauts, but an unfortunate unfit
minority cannot. In the real world, the situation is the other way round: the majority of people dont
have the genes to become astronauts, and only a small minority with perfect eyesight and perfect
physical fitnessthe Neil Armstrong typeswould qualify.
The only difference is that in the real world, we try to be polite about the unpleasant realities of life
by insisting that the Average Joe has, at least theoretically, a Rocky-esque chance of becoming an
astronaut. In that sense, our covert discrimination is much more polite than the overt discrimination
of the Gattaca variety. But it seems that our world, where genetic privilege exists naturally among a
tiny minority, could conceivably be less equal (and less socially mobile) than a world with genetic
engineering, where genetic enhancements would be potentially available to the majority of people,
giving them a chance to create better futures for themselves. Supporters of human genetic
engineering thus ask the fair question: Are natural genetic inequalities, doled out randomly and
sometimes unfairly by nature, more just than engineered ones, which might be earned through good
old fashioned American values like hard work, determination, and effort?
Discuss: What would be your response to this question asked by the writer?
But, the critics ask, wouldnt genetic engineering lead us to eugenics? The pro-genetic
engineering crowd thinks not. They suggest that genetic engineering, if done on a purely
decentralized basis by free individuals and couples, will not involve any form of coercion. Unlike the
Nazi eugenics program of the 1930s, which involved the forced, widespread killing of unfit peoples
and disabled babies, the de facto effect of genetic engineering is to cure disabilities, not kill the
disabled. This is a key moral difference. As pointed out by biologist Robert Sinsheimer, genetic
engineering would permit in principle the conversion of all the unfit to the highest genetic level.
Too often, women choose to abort babies because pre-natal testing shows that they have Down
syndrome or some other ailment. If anything, genetic engineering should be welcomed by pro-life
groups because by converting otherwise-disabled babies into normal, healthy ones, it would reduce
the number of abortions.
Discuss: How right, in your opinion, is it to remove disability from human society?
It is true that genetic engineering may limit childrens autonomy to shape their own destinies. But it
is equally true that all peoples destinies are already limited by their natural genetic makeup, a
makeup that they are born with and cannot change. A short person, for example, would be unlikely
to join the basketball team because his height makes it difficult for him to compete with his tall
peers. An ugly person would be unable to achieve her dream of becoming a famous actress because
the lead roles are reserved for the beautiful. A myopic kid who wears glasses will find it difficult to
become a pilot. A student with an IQ of 75 will be unlikely to get into Harvard however hard he tries.
In some way or another, our destinies are limited by the genes we are born with.
In this sense, it is arguable that genetic engineering might help to level the playing field. Genetic
engineering could give people greater innate capacity to fulfill their dreams and pursue their own
happiness. Rather than allow peoples choices to be limited by their genetic makeup, why not give
each person the capability of becoming whatever he or she wants to, and let his or her eventual
success be determined by effort, willpower, and perseverance? America has long represented the
idea that people can shape their own destinies. To paraphrase Dr. King, why not have a society
where people are judged not by the genes they inherit, but by the content of their character?
Discuss: Could genetic engineering help level the playing field?
Looking at both sides, the genetic engineering controversy does raise questions that should be
answered, not shouted down. Like all major scientific advances, it probably has some negative
effects, and steps must be taken to ameliorate these outcomes. For example, measures should also
be taken to ensure that genetic engineerings benefits are, at least to some extent, available to the
poor. As ethicists Maxwell Mehlman and Jeffrey Botkin suggest in their book Access to the Genome:
The Challenge to Equality, the rich could be taxed on genetic enhancements, and the revenue from
these taxes could be used to help pay for the genetic enhancement of the poor. To some extent, this
will help to ameliorate the unequal effects of genetic engineering, allowing its benefits to be more
equitably distributed. In addition, caution must be taken in other areas, such as ensuring that the
sanctity of human life is respected at all times. In this respect, pro-life groups like Focus on the Family
can take a leading role in ensuring that scientific advances do not come at the expense of moral
ethics.
Discuss: Is taxation of the rich a realistic proposal? Does it currently work in our society?
Why/Why not?
At the same time, we should not allow our fear of change to prevent our society from exploring this
promising new field of science, one that promises so many medical and social benefits. A strategy
that defines itself against the core idea of scientific progress cannot succeed. Instead of attempting
to bury our heads in the sand, we should seek to harness genetic engineering for its positive benefits,
even as we take careful steps to ameliorate its potential downsides.
Discuss: Should genetic engineering be allowed to succeed involving human embryos? Why / Why
not?
Taken from the Stanford Review : http://stanfordreview.org/article/arguing-and-against-
genetic-engineering/